Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 1016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Salahuddin – Appellant
Versus
Nayab Ahmed Shakir – Respondent
CM(M) 313 of 2023
Decided On : 28-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Anil K Bhasin, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Emphasis on strict adherence to timelines for disposal of appeals

Headnote:
Exemption - Filing of Certified Copies - The court allowed exemption from filing certified copies of annexures, subject to all just exceptions.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order passed by the First Appellate Court and sought stay of the decree and execution proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The court directed the First Appellate Court to take up the appeal and dispose of it expeditiously, setting strict timelines for the same.
Issues: Challenge to First Appellate Court order, Stay of decree and execution proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized strict adherence to timelines for disposal of the appeal and warned that any infraction would disentitle the petitioner from relief.
Final Decision: The petition stands disposed of with directions to the First Appellate Court to expedite the appeal process.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

CM APP No. 9595/2023

1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures.

2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. Application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 313/2023 & CM APP No. 9594/2023 (Stay)

4. The petitioner challenges the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by learned First Appellate Court (RCT) in RCT No. 69/2022 titled `Salahuddin & Anr. vs. Nayab Ahmed Shakir & Ors.'.

5. Mr. Ashok Gurnani, learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite having filed the appeal under Section 38 of DRC Act, 1958, the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908, seeking stay of the decree and execution proceedings, the learned RCT has not passed any interim order.

6. Learned counsel also submits that in the meanwhile, the learned ARC had, vide its order dated 14.07.2022 directed appointment of a Bailiff for the purposes of execution of the decree of possession.

7. Mr. Anil Bhasin, learned counsel for the respondent draws attention of this Court to paragraph 2 of order dated 14.07.2022 passed by ARC noting that there was a failure in compliance of order under Section 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, and the arrears of rent were not deposited on time. On that basis, learned ARC had directed that the Bailiff be appointed for the purposes of executing the decree.

8. The First Appellate Court (RCT) is requested to take up the appeal filed by the petitioner herein in all earnest and possibly by 03.03.2023 and dispose of the same in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, however, not later than 15.04.2023.

9. Aforesaid timelines have to be strictly adhered to. Any infraction of the timeline so stated above shall disentitle the petitioner from any relief granted under the present order.

10. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document